Ebay And Shopping.

[FastFreddy2 282]

From >> here << 

I've tried to upload a video, but it's larger than the forum allows.

They really do look like a 5+ inch heel too!

 

5th try with lower quality vid .... Read first .....

For some reason there is no option to 'embed' a video here I can find. The link below will not 'play', but download to your computer, and you will need to allow (windows) media player to run the vid by clicking on the file once it has arrived on your computer.  It was hard enough to get the video isolated in a ready-to-play format, so I'm right out of enthusiasm for uploading to You Tube I'm afraid .... Each time you click on the link below, it'll be downloaded too. 

 

 Odessa at Just Fab.wmv

 

 

Edited December 30, 2015 by FastFreddy2

[Puffer 258]

Nice sandals with thin straps, although rather too many of them.   I rather doubt that the heel is higher than 5" - it will be interesting to know more if anyone buys them.

The video was interesting, especially in the rather exaggerated way the model walked.   Her high-stepping reminded me of a performing horse at the circus; I suppose she had to do that so we could see something within the narrow frame width.

Are shoes from Just Fab any good?

[Heels 27]

It was those straps that caught my eye in the first place and the heel height is another bonus . There is also this pair with a 5" heel with even more straps but does have a zip at the back, from the same company. Was thinking of buying at least one pair. You either pay full price for them or become a VIP member and have a discount but there are conditions  if you do that. It's those conditions that making me think twice abouit buying straight away.

[FastFreddy2 282]

1 hour ago, Heels said:

It was those straps that caught my eye in the first place and the heel height is another bonus .

 

There is also this pair with a 5" heel with even more straps but does have a zip at the back, from the same company. Was thinking of buying at least one pair. You either pay full price for them or become a VIP member and have a discount but there are conditions  if you do that. It's those conditions that making me think twice abouit buying straight away.

 

I think the first of the two pairs shown are 5 inches and likely more, given the angle of the rise and the proportion of heel to shoe length. At the moment, a 5" heel in a size 8 or 9 isn't as unusual as it was 3 or 4 years ago. I have just bought a court shoe from Office with a 5¼ inch heel.  I paid a reasonable amount of money for them, but they are absolutely 'must haves' despite the price, and unlike the Schuh version, I can actually walk a bit in these.  

Neither pair from Just Fab are for me though, as I'm not big on straps, but realise they are very 'on trend' at the moment despite it being (ahemm) Winter.  (So wintry in fact, I have been working outside for a while in a T-shirt today, and a lady neighbour was outside sweeping up leaves wearing a thin strappy top.  )

 

The shoes from Just Fab are without doubt, PU and inexpensive. For a nice style, I would pay what looks like the compulsory £35 - if you don't sign up for discount. Some time ago I too thought twice before making a purchase, and didn't in fact make a purchase. They currently have a couple of pairs I might be tempted by, but the purchase procedure doesn't look simple or attractive .... 

Edited December 29, 2015 by FastFreddy2

[Heels 27]

5 hours ago, FastFreddy2 said:

 

 

 

The shoes from Just Fab are without doubt, PU and inexpensive. For a nice style, I would pay what looks like the compulsory £35 - if you don't sign up for discount. Some time ago I too thought twice before making a purchase, and didn't in fact make a purchase. 

 £35 is the VIP price. I paid £44 for them.

Edited December 29, 2015 by Heels

[FastFreddy2 282]

4 hours ago, Heels said:

 £35 is the VIP price. I paid £44 for them.

I would pay £44 for the first pair if I had somewhere to wear them, simply because of the heel height. Any more, and the price point has wandered into Pleaser territory. I have had my eye on a pair of their newer [Sexy 20] styles, with the vertical heels? The standard heel height of these in my size is 5¼ inches, and come in at around £45-£55 -ish delivered. 

Even though I have no venue yet to wear them, I would very much like to own some red patent courts .... To satisfy my inner floozy.   

 

 

 

 

 

[Puffer 258]

An interesting comparison pic of the two Devious styles.   The contrast in heel shape and positioning is well shown.   The 420 has a 'traditional' stiletto, which I prefer visually.   My understanding is that the set-back heel on the 20 makes walking more difficult as it is behind the weight-bearing area of the foot - but I have no practical experience of this.

I don't really understand why the set-back heel seems very common these days - more so than the traditional shape/position.   Is this because it gives an illusion of a slightly higher heel?   Do you prefer that look, Freddy, or is it more a fit/walking issue?

[FastFreddy2 282]

2 hours ago, Puffer said:

I don't really understand why the set-back heel seems very common these days - more so than the traditional shape/position.   Is this because it gives an illusion of a slightly higher heel?   Do you prefer that look, Freddy, or is it more a fit/walking issue?

As yet, I have not tried a pair of the 20's though it's not for the lack of effort. One of the absent members here has a pair, and I have tried a number of times to meet up with him to try his on, before ordering some for myself. I am likely larger than a UK7 (US10) and smaller than UK8 (US11) with the Pleaser sizing. If I'm not walking far, the US10 is possibly the better fit. Certainly a US11 would just fall off after 5 minutes of wearing, and it may be I would choose a style that included some sort of ankle strap if I went for the larger size. At least two style are available in the 20's that have this. I've no idea what the toe-box sizing is like and that might be the critical issue. I'm happy in a 7 court as long as there is some toe room. Once my toes have compressed from standing, even a 7 gives the impression of being too long as my heel falls out of the shoe. Narrow isn't a problem, but short is. The reason the Schuh Lois collection had to go, was because the toe box was short. The new Office shoes I have fit like a 7, and are (very) narrow, but there is room for my toes so they've been kept.

 

As for preference; the 420's look better with the higher heel of the two heel height options, and are easier to walk in than the two other pairs of courts I own with 5¼ inch heels, despite the additional height of the 420's. I was kindly 'gifted' a surplus pair from hh4evr, which I feel I can walk in for a short time. (I haven't worn them out, and at this time have no intention of doing so.) Since they are the highest shoes I own they are somewhat cherished at this time, so are kept for modelling activities.  In the leggings thread, the shoes worn in the pictures are the 420's. They don't look the 5½ inches in height they are, which might explain why Pleaser have introduced the vertical heeled 20's? 

On a stand-alone comparison (as opposed to the side-by-side one above), it may be the 20's look higher because of the slimness of the heel? It certainly makes them feel higher because I've found them much harder to walk in without making it obvious I have a heel on. It's almost like for every mm of set back, there is a mm of extra height felt, while walking in the same height heel. 

 

"Just for fun" let's play at being shoe designers for a few minutes, and maybe pretend to be the designers of the very first stiletto heeled shoe. During our experiments, we pushed the envelope to see how high the heel could be made too.

On a (then) regular ladies sized 5 (UK) foot, anything much beyond 5 inches was pointless, because the wearers heel stopped going up and started going forward. (Liken this to a 6 inch heel on a man.) The original concept heel had that 5 inches, right underneath the rear part of the heel on the foot. The wearers foot just about as vertical as it would go, while achieving a modest amount of support from the heel of the shoe. No appreciable weight on it, but it did provide some stabilisation. 

On walking, the arc the front part of her foot made to land once the heel had already been placed on the ground, was so long that walking -as we understand it- was in practical terms; impossible. Either the heel had to be reduced to 4 inches (which is actually, pretty much a standard) or that arc had to altered in some way. A larger foot wouldn't help, as it didn't change the ratio's of the arc much, if at all. The way to change the ratio was to change the pivot point of the arc to reduce it's size. With the heel brought inboard (forward - toward the toe box) the smaller arc produced proved to be more wearer friendly, and that 5 inch heel could then be used/worn.

Once the concept of the inboard heel is accepted, it might have become a prerequisite of a higher heel? It also provides a longer base on the shoe for the heel to be attached, which might also help with some additional longevity to the heel, since a higher heel has got to be more prone to deformation through use walking?

 

This 'theory' is somewhat borne out by my experience with a very high heel-less shoe, was was very easy to walk in, despite having a platform too.

  

Could all be a croc of pooh, but it does seem to fit? 

 

 

Edited December 30, 2015 by FastFreddy2

[Tacchi Alti 39]

I don't like the set-back heel. It looks unbalanced and actually looks lower as there is not the same perceived angle. I can quite imagine that it's harder to walk in as it would throw all the weight onto the toes rather than support the whole foot through balancing between toes and heels. I like the superarch shoes for aesthetics. I've never tried them, unfortunately, but the profile is much more like the shape of an extended foot, and I expect that would give ultimate support.

[Puffer 258]

Freddy - I am digesting your 'physics homework' (or is it 'applied mechanics'?   I'm not yet sure, although I took both at A-level!) and, if I can comment meaningfully later, will do so.   

Russ's opinion of the set-back heel's apparent height is interesting; not sure I agree on that but his view on walking sounds right to me.

 

[FastFreddy2 282]

13 hours ago, Russ in boots said:

I don't like the set-back heel. It looks unbalanced and actually looks lower as there is not the same perceived angle. I can quite imagine that it's harder to walk in as it would throw all the weight onto the toes rather than support the whole foot through balancing between toes and heels.

Position of the heel is not significant until motion (walking) is involved. As long as the shoe does not flex while motionless of course. I suspect the shape or rate of the rise (lift) is more meaningful in your analysis.

For example: I had a pair of ALDO heel with a 5" heel (as near matters) that had a lengthy slope (rise/lift) that pretty much produced what I would describe as a 'lazy L' foot shape. Another pair, Schuh Lois with 5" heel but a shorter shoe, that was achieved by compressing the rise (lift) using more of a flattened S shape. The compression on the shoe profile, produced the need for the instep to more arched than in the uncompressed style. For me, it made the heel feel higher and made walking more difficult, because my foot could not flex as much as it would like. "In theory", the S shape might be more comfortable for standing, as the heel section of the shoe might be more horizontal? But again, speaking as someone who has had to stand fairly still in a heel for well over 2 hours (when I weighed less too) I found it was agony, meaning I have my doubts there is such a thing as a comfortable heel for standing still in. For the record, I wore the same shoes for a night out with no issues at all, but standing still for the better part of 3 hours felt like someone had hammered nails into the balls of my feet.     

 

3 hours ago, Puffer said:

Freddy - I am digesting your 'physics homework' (or is it 'applied mechanics'?   I'm not yet sure, although I took both at A-level!) and, if I can comment meaningfully later, will do so.   

Russ's opinion of the set-back heel's apparent height is interesting; not sure I agree on that but his view on walking sounds right to me.

 

 

Since the only A level I studied was Maths, I'd go for Geometry homework, regarding shape. Then, Applied Mechanics when the shoe is used for walking, as that would include a working (human) foot, where there are pivots and axes involved. Since we are not concerned with motion as an expender of energy, nor need to provide comparisons against absolutes, perhaps we can send Physics home early for today?    

I can not agree with Russ on the 'apparent' height of the set-back heel. Unless I'm completely wrong (it's been known,  ) the raison d'etre of the set-back heel, is to create the illusion of a higher heel by making the heel breast as high as possible without compromising the integrity of the heel on the shoe.

 

  

For Russ, who may not be having the sense of déjà vu that Puffer and I are enjoying .... (Previously, on 'ebay and shopping' )

Back up the thread circa 6 months ..... >> clicky <<

 

Edited December 31, 2015 by FastFreddy2

[Puffer 258]

13 hours ago, FastFreddy2 said:

Position of the heel is not significant until motion (walking) is involved. As long as the shoe does not flex while motionless of course. I suspect the shape or rate of the rise (lift) is more meaningful in your analysis.

For example: I had a pair of ALDO heel with a 5" heel (as near matters) that had a lengthy slope (rise/lift) that pretty much produced what I would describe as a 'lazy L' foot shape. Another pair, Schuh Lois with 5" heel but a shorter shoe, that was achieved by compressing the rise (lift) using more of a flattened S shape. The compression on the shoe profile, produced the need for the instep to more arched than in the uncompressed style. For me, it made the heel feel higher and made walking more difficult, because my foot could not flex as much as it would like. "In theory", the S shape might be more comfortable for standing, as the heel section of the shoe might be more horizontal? But again, speaking as someone who has had to stand fairly still in a heel for well over 2 hours (when I weighed less too) I found it was agony, meaning I have my doubts there is such a thing as a comfortable heel for standing still in. For the record, I wore the same shoes for a night out with no issues at all, but standing still for the better part of 3 hours felt like someone had hammered nails into the balls of my feet.     

Since the only A level I studied was Maths, I'd go for Geometry homework, regarding shape. Then, Applied Mechanics when the shoe is used for walking, as that would include a working (human) foot, where there are pivots and axes involved. Since we are not concerned with motion as an expender of energy, nor need to provide comparisons against absolutes, perhaps we can send Physics home early for today?    

I can not agree with Russ on the 'apparent' height of the set-back heel. Unless I'm completely wrong (it's been known,  ) the raison d'etre of the set-back heel, is to create the illusion of a higher heel by making the heel breast as high as possible without compromising the integrity of the heel on the shoe.

 

  

For Russ, who may not be having the sense of déjà vu that Puffer and I are enjoying .... (Previously, on 'ebay and shopping' )

Back up the thread circa 6 months ..... >> clicky <<

 

Freddy:   Although describing the position of the shoe and foot requires an element of geometry, we are concerned here mainly with movement (walking) and stress (force) and that is essentially a question of mechanics (levers; moments of a force etc), which is a branch of physics.   (My A-levels were chemistry, physics, maths (pure and applied), applied mechanics and technical drawing - cunningly chosen because the latter four had a number of overlaps and could be studied for the price of about 2.5 separate subjects.   Alas, my results in the first three were not good - but I did well in the other two - and so abandoned thoughts of university and a career in (chemical) engineering.   Perhaps I should have become a draughtsman - now a job mostly done by computers - but that didn't happen either, fortunately.)

I had forgotten your excellent description of heel shapes etc last summer and commend it to the house.   It was very clear from the pictures then included that the 'set back' heel looks higher because there is indeed much less breast to the heel and thus more daylight under the shoe, making the already slender heel look high on its front as well as at the back.   That, presumably, is the main reason for its common use - despite it looking less elegant and being less comfortable.   One may well ask: 'Why, when 50+ years ago it was easy to get single-sole heels 4.5" - 5" or even higher (and see them worn with reasonable facility), do few shoes nowadays have an effective rise of much more than 4"?'  I don't believe that women are now less agile than they were (although they might be less fit!) - and they are certainly more daring in their fashion choices - but perhaps they are simply lazy or have never had the opportunity to try a 'proper' (5") stiletto, unencumbered by a usually ugly platform?

You also say in an earlier post that  'A larger foot wouldn't help, as it didn't change the ratio's of the arc much, if at all.'   I'm not sure I understand your point here; surely, if a foot is larger, a higher heel can be worn without changing the geometry or ratios - every linear measurement increases in proportion but angles remain fixed.   That is patently the case with many shoes where the heel is higher in the larger sizes, the 'silhouette' of the shoe remaining the same.   (In theory, I could wear a 6" heel in UK11 with the same facility as someone wearing a 5" heel in UK5 - my foot being about 20% longer and my heel 20% higher.   I say 'in theory' because I doubt that I could actually manage it!)

On a totally separate point, how does one convert what is often a lengthy link into a simple word such as 'clicky' or 'here'?

[FastFreddy2 282]

6 hours ago, Puffer said:

One may well ask: 'Why, when 50+ years ago it was easy to get single-sole heels 4.5" - 5" or even higher (and see them worn with reasonable facility), do few shoes nowadays have an effective rise of much more than 4"?'  I don't believe that women are now less agile than they were (although they might be less fit!) - and they are certainly more daring in their fashion choices - but perhaps they are simply lazy or have never had the opportunity to try a 'proper' (5") stiletto, unencumbered by a usually ugly platform?

Weight, owner of. If you haven't done it recently, have a look of some film of people going about their business in the 1950's, or a period some would describe as pre-fast-food. (And until 1953 for sugar, until 1954 for meat, subject to rationing.) You will notice, possibly if you are inclined to look hard, there are few or no-one that appears overweight. Women and their feet were naturally smaller, and a 4" heel in a size 4 or 5, is a fair achievement, especially if worn for extended periods. 

These days, women are taller (better fed) and heavier (better fed and bad diet). "Comfort", care of the 'grunge' of 1990's fashion, has produced a generation of females unwilling (perhaps wisely) less keen to 'suffer' for fashion? Supposing of course, they have the skills for a heel....

 

Quote

You also say in an earlier post that  'A larger foot wouldn't help, as it didn't change the ratio's of the arc much, if at all.'   I'm not sure I understand your point here; surely, if a foot is larger, a higher heel can be worn without changing the geometry or ratios - every linear measurement increases in proportion but angles remain fixed.   That is patently the case with many shoes where the heel is higher in the larger sizes, the 'silhouette' of the shoe remaining the same.   (In theory, I could wear a 6" heel in UK11 with the same facility as someone wearing a 5" heel in UK5 - my foot being about 20% longer and my heel 20% higher.   I say 'in theory' because I doubt that I could actually manage it!)

 

As long as proportions stay identical, the arc relates to distance in degrees (though doubtless you will tell me otherwise). Going back up the thread, it was the Eureka moment when I realised what was wrong with my original theory. I had looked at distance the sole travelled, once the heel tip was landed, and why 'same height' heels had differing effects on heel height 'feel'. The answer was "arc", with set-back heel producing a much larger arc (greater distance travelled). 

Take a round cake with a 9 inch diameter, cut it into 8 pieces and sit one piece plated, on it's side.

Take a round cake with a 12 in diameter, cut it into 8 pieces and sit one piece plated, on it's side.

The height of the cake pieces, are not the same. 

The centre of the cake (lowest point of the wedge slice) is the pivot point of the heel tip. The heights of the cake, distance the sole must travel to land. The set-back heel produces a longer arc, even though the 'degrees' of movement are the same (if they are). This will also apply to a larger shoe too of course, even if proportions remain identical, because of the length of the arc. Longer shoe, longer arc. Further away the pivot, longer arc the toe has to make.

Longer arc, more difficult to walk, greater 'felt' height?

 

Quote

On a totally separate point, how does one convert what is often a lengthy link into a simple word such as 'clicky' or 'here'?

 

First "copy" (from elsewhere) the URL address from the link you want to include. 

 

Then find the text in your post you want to use the link with, and highlight that as if you were going to copy it (but don't) .....

I usually use the words >> here << or >> clicky << and identify them with chevrons. (Not compulsory.) It can be any phrase in the body of text you choose. Sometimes I will use an organisation name, or a celebrity, or a product. It can be anything.

 

Then click on the 'link' icon 

 

 

An option box will appear, where you insert the link. Use 'paste' to insert the previously copied link, and then select "Insert into post" as shown by the dark box here:

 

 

Although the box titled "line text" doesn't show it, when I use this function that box will have the word I have used shown, which is usually "here" or "clicky".

That is it. You should find the phrase or word you used as the link anchor, will indicate it's no longer plain unformatted text. That's an indicator you have done what you intended. If you are unsure, test your own links after you publish, and if it hasn't worked, just edit and try again. 

Edited December 31, 2015 by FastFreddy2

[FastFreddy2 282]

On 09/06/2015 at 11:19 PM, FastFreddy2 said:

The reason I mention these ..... All of the shoes I have yet to wear out and likely won't..... I still find myself keeping an eye on some Jimmy Choo shoes that range in price (used), from around £190 to £270-ish.  New they were £475. In my head, the only thing stopping me buying, is not knowing if the shoes will fit. I sometimes get into a 7 in a court shoe, though I'm an 8. Often, a 7½ would be ideal if I have any hope of keeping the shoe on, since an 8 will ALWAYS fall off after a short while.

 

While in London's West End browsing the sales with empty pockets, I finally got to 'try on' a pair of Jimmy Choo Anouk in what I might describe as dark green suede.

The concession is in Selfridges, and it was bursting full, standing room only. There were two pairs of heels in the 41/41½ range I wanted to try, and I almost didn't find the nerve to try one before leaving. (Mrs Freddy didn't want me to try them either, as there was about 20 people in the gaff and 5 of those were assistants, two of whom were there just to watch the customers I think.) 

After 5 minutes of hesitation looking at the girlie/sparkly 41½ we decided to leave. Close to the entrance/exit, I found a 41, and a slightly less busy corner. Slipped my heeled shoe off, slipped the Anouk on. Fitted, if snug, but no more snug than the UK8's from Office. I would like a pair of Anouks in red patent, or black leather (though I'm not sure they have ever been made in leather as I've only ever seen them in anything but ....) Black patent seem more readily available than the red. At £375 a pair and £5 delivery .... I have put a kidney up for sale. 

Looking at buying a similar shoe from Office at a modest £65 as an alternative, the red patent ones I keep pointing out to Mrs Freddy as a potential 'pressie' are as usual, 'sold out' in my size.  Tonight I also found out why Office had/has two versions of the same shoe on offer: one is leather patent, the other PU patent. Had I realised this was the case, I would have bought the leather patent version some time ago, because I'm reluctant to spend £65 on a PU shoe. (Though I will if needs be.)

Obviously, I'll be keeping a watchful eye on the auctions. 

  

 

[Puffer 258]

The Anouk is a nice-looking shoe, Freddy, with a heel of almost the optimum shape and position (imho).   It seems to be variously described as 4.7" or 5" high - maybe size-sensitive.  

A quick look online suggests that some colours at least are discounted at Jimmy Choo; I rather like this one: http://www.jimmychoo.com/en/sale/women-sale/shoes/anouk/blackberry-suede-pointy-toe-pumps-ANOUKSUE050212.html?gclid=COy49I33j8oCFQTjGwodR_UMRw&cm_mmc=GoogleUK-_-Shopping-_-Shopping-_-j000051096345&geoip=geoip&updatePreLocale=true   Still expensive though; hardly worth a kidney.   

[Tacchi Alti 39]

On 31 December 2015 at 1:36 AM, FastFreddy2 said:

Position of the heel is not significant until motion (walking) is involved. As long as the shoe does not flex while motionless of course. I suspect the shape or rate of the rise (lift) is more meaningful in your analysis.

For example: I had a pair of ALDO heel with a 5" heel (as near matters) that had a lengthy slope (rise/lift) that pretty much produced what I would describe as a 'lazy L' foot shape. Another pair, Schuh Lois with 5" heel but a shorter shoe, that was achieved by compressing the rise (lift) using more of a flattened S shape. The compression on the shoe profile, produced the need for the instep to more arched than in the uncompressed style. For me, it made the heel feel higher and made walking more difficult, because my foot could not flex as much as it would like. "In theory", the S shape might be more comfortable for standing, as the heel section of the shoe might be more horizontal? But again, speaking as someone who has had to stand fairly still in a heel for well over 2 hours (when I weighed less too) I found it was agony, meaning I have my doubts there is such a thing as a comfortable heel for standing still in. For the record, I wore the same shoes for a night out with no issues at all, but standing still for the better part of 3 hours felt like someone had hammered nails into the balls of my feet.     

 

 

Since the only A level I studied was Maths, I'd go for Geometry homework, regarding shape. Then, Applied Mechanics when the shoe is used for walking, as that would include a working (human) foot, where there are pivots and axes involved. Since we are not concerned with motion as an expender of energy, nor need to provide comparisons against absolutes, perhaps we can send Physics home early for today?    

I can not agree with Russ on the 'apparent' height of the set-back heel. Unless I'm completely wrong (it's been known,  ) the raison d'etre of the set-back heel, is to create the illusion of a higher heel by making the heel breast as high as possible without compromising the integrity of the heel on the shoe.

 

  

For Russ, who may not be having the sense of déjà vu that Puffer and I are enjoying .... (Previously, on 'ebay and shopping' )

Back up the thread circa 6 months ..... >> clicky <<

 

What I meant was that with an identical height and slope, a set-back heel is easier to walk in than one that is perpendicular to the back of the shoe. My experience...

[FastFreddy2 282]

 

3 hours ago, Russ in boots said:

What I meant was that with an identical height and slope, a set-back heel is easier to walk in than one that is perpendicular to the back of the shoe. My experience...

Are we referring to 'set-back' as the same thing?

Set-back, is meant (as far as I understand it) to mean the heel is at it's most rearward position possible, like this: 

 

 

I would have said (subject to consensus), the set-back heel would be the one considered "perpendicular' to the rear of the heel? While semantics weren't discussed as such, the term was referred to several times previously with no disparity I'm aware of.

 

3 hours ago, Puffer said:

The Anouk is a nice-looking shoe, Freddy, with a heel of almost the optimum shape and position (imho).   It seems to be variously described as 4.7" or 5" high - maybe size-sensitive.  

A quick look online suggests that some colours at least are discounted at Jimmy Choo; I rather like this one: http://www.jimmychoo.com/en/sale/women-sale/shoes/anouk/blackberry-suede-pointy-toe-pumps-ANOUKSUE050212.html?gclid=COy49I33j8oCFQTjGwodR_UMRw&cm_mmc=GoogleUK-_-Shopping-_-Shopping-_-j000051096345&geoip=geoip&updatePreLocale=true   Still expensive though; hardly worth a kidney.   

 

My experience suggests retailers don't actually measure the heels on the footwear they sell. I've mentioned before, nearly every (high) heel sold in America has a 4" heel, even when it plainly doesn't. (This might be a minute exaggeration for the pedants amongst you.) But the concept is there. Even UK retailers will claim 5" heel, (P/D boots) when in fact they are not.

Thanks for the link, but I had trawled JC and most of the internet before posting, and I did mention the colour/materials I preferred. As Mrs Freddy tells me all too often: "If I'm going to be spending a lot of money on something, it'll be on the item I want." 

No possession on the planet is worth one of my kidneys. It was meant as a euphemism for having to sell something to finance the purchase. Not that I (honestly) expect to ever buy a shoe that expensive anyway. And it's starting to look like the affordable Office version may be out of reach too. "He who hesitates ..." Innit. 

 

Edited January 4, 2016 by FastFreddy2

[Tacchi Alti 39]

8 minutes ago, FastFreddy2 said:

 

Are we referring to 'set-back' as the same thing?

Set-back, is meant (as far as I understand it) to mean the heel is at it's most rearward position possible, like this: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Obviously not, then. :-)

[FastFreddy2 282]

8 minutes ago, Russ in boots said:

Obviously not, then. :-)

 

So you find the same?

If the heel is placed as far backwards on the shoe as it will go, it is harder to walk in? 

[Tacchi Alti 39]

29 minutes ago, FastFreddy2 said:

 

So you find the same?

If the heel is placed as far backwards on the shoe as it will go, it is harder to walk in? 

Yes. I find it a question of balance. If the heel is set in (which is what I meant but used the opposite expression...) it makes the whole walking process much easier. I'm sure there is a mechanical reason but in practice I find it very difficult with a set-back heel to walk without slapping the sole down, and that also makes your gait much more jerky and thus more noticeable.

[FastFreddy2 282]

13 minutes ago, Russ in boots said:

I'm sure there is a mechanical reason but in practice I find it very difficult with a set-back heel to walk without slapping the sole down, and that also makes your gait much more jerky and thus more noticeable.

Exactly so.

I have tried to explain it the distance your foot travels in an arc.

When the heel is landed, it becomes a pivot, over which the whole of your foot has to rotate. The longer that arc, the more ungainly your (my) stride will be, because it takes time and effort to get that sole landed on the ground. Shorter arcs, are easier to walk in.

This looks like an extreme, (though expensive) solution:

 

 

Zanotti likes a very high, short shoe. (Steep rise.) I'd like to think this is fairly easy to walk in, though at £350 on an auction site, I'm never going to know. 

 

 

[Puffer 258]

Well, I'm glad we all now seem to understand and agree on something!   As I see it, in narrative formulaic form:

In respect of a high-heeled shoe standing on a flat plane surface at zero elevation, ease of walking is proportional to the horizontal distance between:

(i) the point at which the rearmost extremity of the heel of that shoe touches that plane; and

(ii) a vertical line through the rearmost point on the wearer's heel whilst standing in that shoe. 

(I doubt that the ease is directly proportional - i.e. that doubling the distance doubles the ease of walking - so we probably have to introduce a factor and a constant into the true formula.   But that must await some empirical research - any offers?)

Early stiletto heels were often placed further forward than what I regard as the 'classic' position (per Devious 420 above) and, although they might have made walking easier, gave the shoe a somewhat unbalanced (rear-heavy) look imho, which the horrible Zanotti takes to extreme.   Men's (cowboy/Beatle) boots with 'underslung' heels achieve a similar effect; my Underground 'Fred' boots are easy to walk in and one is less conscious of the heel hitting the ground than in boots with a similar height of heel that has its more vertical rear a little further back.

[FastFreddy2 282]

3 hours ago, Puffer said:

Well, I'm glad we all now seem to understand and agree on something!   As I see it, in narrative formulaic form:

In respect of a high-heeled shoe standing on a flat plane surface at zero elevation, ease of walking is proportional to the horizontal distance between:

(i) the point at which the rearmost extremity of the heel of that shoe touches that plane; and

(ii) a vertical line through the rearmost point on the wearer's heel whilst standing in that shoe. 

(I doubt that the ease is directly proportional - i.e. that doubling the distance doubles the ease of walking - so we probably have to introduce a factor and a constant into the true formula.   But that must await some empirical research - any offers?)

 

 

And without wishing to ruin this eloquent narrative (so typical of the author ) I'm now wondering if the correct relationship IS the back of the heel and could be more the ball of the foot?

I looked at the picture above with the vertical lines - for some considerable time, trying to figure out pertinent relationships. The reason being Puffer's primer regarding 'proportion', which I see as a ratio. For example, a 45' degree rise might be the worst angle for this 'felt' difficulty. It probably isn't, but a 'theoretical' vertical foot would not experience a problem with a set-back heel, nor would a horizontal foot. Proximity close to either of those extremes might not be considered an issue either, leaving the real problem area in the middle to upper middle ground possibly? Were I to try to explain that, it might be along the lines of: A 45-60' incline (rise) in the attitude of a foot caused by wearing a high heel, handicaps a normal gait by limiting the usually free movement of the ankle and hip combination. (Which we all know.) A set-back heel, exacerbates that handicap.

The steeper that incline is, the greater the potential effect of the set back heel, to a point. For example, past a point (x) every 3mm upward 'feels the same' as a 1mm set back on the heel. I can't see this ratio being fixed either. At 80 degrees ANY set back will have almost no significance at all, and may even be mandatory to maximise the balance of the shoe. Is the reverse also true, that moving the heel (pivot) forwards (toward the toe) reduces the 'felt' height of the shoe making it slightly less demanding to wear?  

 

Returning to my longing gaze seeking inspiration ..... The difference in the two examples styles shown, didn't appear to be so great there was a significant change. The KG Cilla I have here shares a similar heel location to the Sexy 20. While the 420 is higher, it is easier to walk in. Harder on the calf muscles of course, so long walks are never likely from me, but that shoe is easier to walk in than the Cilla (Sexy 20). Is it because the set back heel puts the pivot behind or underneath the ankle while walking, which could be a more difficult change to accommodate, than a higher heel? 

While there is some agreement from personal experience that a set back heel makes walking disproportionately more difficult - as no extra heel height is involved - is there a critical point (y)? Where, just as Russ says, the heel position "imbalances" the potential for walking comfortably on what might otherwise be a reasonably high heel? 

 

Any ideas?

Edited January 5, 2016 by FastFreddy2

[Puffer 258]

I am flattered by the reference to my 'eloquent narrative'.   But eloquence is one thing; erudition is another - and hands up who thought that 'erudite' was an epoxy adhesive? 

Upon mature reflection, I see a flaw in my 'formula', which Freddy has indirectly spotted:   if the back of the shoe heel is excessively far forward - in advance of the wearer's normal 'tipping point' - then walking will be almost impossible (despite the claims made for some rather weird exercise sandals that have a negative heel height).   Clearly, there do have to be limits.   I'm not sure about the alternative of considering the ball of the foot, as (a) its true position is not so easy to determine (which part of the ball?); and (b) if the shoe is reasonably rigid (surely a characteristic of high heels in particular?), the ball is scarcely acting as a fulcrum in normal walking, so can it really be a critical component?

In the mathematical sense (as used above), proportion and ratio are effectively the same: two things that maintain the same relative size as they get larger or smaller are always 'in proportion', or their sizes are 'in ratio'.   In other senses, the two terms do not necessarily mean the same but can have a relationship.   For example, if 30% of the population are smokers, it is often said that 'the proportion of smokers is 30%' (or '3 in 10') but the corresponding ratio is one of 3:7 (smokers:non-smokers); both holding good regardless of the absolute size of the population in question.

[FastFreddy2 282]

14 minutes ago, Puffer said:

if the back of the shoe heel is excessively far forward - in advance of the wearer's normal 'tipping point' - then walking will be almost impossible 

I'm afraid that will need further explanation, for my benefit at least.  Are you suggesting the Zanotti heels shown would be difficult if not almost impossible to walk in?

 

14 minutes ago, Puffer said:

  I'm not sure about the alternative of considering the ball of the foot, as (a) its true position is not so easy to determine (which part of the ball?); and (b) if the shoe is reasonably rigid (surely a characteristic of high heels in particular?), the ball is scarcely acting as a fulcrum in normal walking, so can it really be a critical component?

The heel (tip) is always the pivot. The 'landing' part, or the bottom of the rise/incline should be considered "the ball". The relationship we have so far considered, is that between the back of the (foot) heel and the position underneath it of the heel tip. Heel tips being directly underneath a heel being less useful for the purposes of walking.  

What I'm struggling with, is the 'felt' difference that moving that heel tip backwards a few mm seems to make, an almost a disproportionate difference. While my own recent experience (so different to when I had much younger ankles), is that 5 or 6 mm in height can made a big difference to comfort over a period, it makes very little difference initially. Heel tip position makes a difference, immediately. Why?

While standing still, pretty much every heel tip is backward to the heel wearers ankle, but when walking? 

So far I have suggested the arc described by the landing foot with the heel tip as the pivot, as being the critical movement, not least because it is the obvious one. But to an ankle, a part of the mechanism that allows fluid rotation for the landing foot to describe that arc, is a back-set heel tip like rotating on top of a shoe class speed bump? What I'm trying to propose, is there another part of the mechanics that is the arbiter of a fluid movement? Is the important part of the arc, where the ankle moves, rather than downstream where the (ball of the) foot lands?

And possibly as important, as the wearer strides forward, a set back heel is going to keep the wearers (foot) heel as far off the ground as possible. A forward set heel allows a shallower angle of approach for the ankle, effectively creating the same 'felt' height of a shoe with a lower heel? (And maybe why the cowboy boots shown earlier have such a strong forward set heel?)

 

14 minutes ago, Puffer said:

In the mathematical sense (as used above), proportion and ratio are effectively the same: two things that maintain the same relative size as they get larger or smaller are always 'in proportion', or their sizes are 'in ratio'.   In other senses, the two terms do not necessarily mean the same but can have a relationship.   For example, if 30% of the population are smokers, it is often said that 'the proportion of smokers is 30%' (or '3 in 10') but the corresponding ratio is one of 3:7 (smokers:non-smokers); both holding good regardless of the absolute size of the population in question.

 

Agreed, but ratio's are often fully defined and are then more convenient for the purposes or multiplication. In a general discussion I would usually reference proportion, if looking to affect that (change it) in any way, I'd be using a ratio.